Re: [Sipping-tispan] Requirements -02g

Miguel Garcia wrote:

> The changes in this version are:
> - Grouping of the CCBS/CCNR requirements for better understing
> - A few clarifications to the CDIV requirements
> - Addition of the Calling Party Category requirements.

I have a comment about one of the added requirements, than then some 
response to your  questions. First, the added requirement:

> REQ-CAT-1: For service applicability to special groups and
>            interoperability with the PSTN/ISDN, application servers
>            providing services require to have an indication of the
>            calling party category.  This is needed because some
>             services apply a special behavior to certain user groups
>            (e.g., like Pay-Phones).

This isn't helpful without some additional information about calling 
party category.
- What is it?
- Is it a single attribute with a well known enumeration of
   possible values?
- Or is the set of values open ended?
- If the values are extensible, how does one learn of the definitions?
- Are multiple values permitted?
   (E.g. the caller is both "police" and "emergency-responder",
    or both "operator" and "prison".)

Without this information it is impossible to evaluate the use of this to 
enable services.

> Now, I have a few questions.
> 
> - The Calling Party Category requirements do not constitute a service by 
>  itself. In my opinion, they should be General requirements listed a 
> REQ-GEN-4 and REQ-GEN-5. Does anyone oppose to move them to the General 
> section?

Seems reasonable to me.

> - We had a pending action point to revisit the ACR requirements once we 
> have drafted the Calling Party Category requirements. Now we have 
> achieved this state, and my opinion is that we don't need to add any 
> extra wording to ACR, since the Calling Party Category requirements 
> cover the use case we have been discussing (police anonymously call a 
> user with ACR activated).

The existing wording does not seem at all sufficient to me to cover this 
case. The following is in the description of ACR:

    services also contains provisions for exceptional cases where the
    service is overridden.  ... Another case is when the caller
    has been duly authorized to override the ACR service running at the
    called party's network.  This is the case, e.g., when a police
    officer or any other authority is anonymously calling to a user
    having the ACR simulation service activated.

There are no requirements corresponding to this description. What 
determines when a caller has been "duly authorized"? IMO the insertion 
of a calling party category does not constitute any kind of 
authorization. At best it is a kind of authentication.

As it stands, calling party category seems to be an attribute without 
semantics, which could be used to do anything. I don't think that is good.

	Paul

> Last, but not least, WE ARE ALMOST DONE with the requirements. So please 
> take a look at this draft and comment on any pending issue. I would like 
> to solve issues as soon as possible and submit the draft for publication.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>         Miguel
> 

_______________________________________________
Sipping-tispan mailing list
Sipping-tispan@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping-tispan